Contents

Continued

What is at stake?

Since Willibrord has seen fit to imply unworthy motives to me, let me be crystal clear. (1) The Antiochian Archdiocese is fully competent, in the person of its ruling hierarch, to authorize (as he has) the liturgies contained in the OM and SASB. (2) I have no problem with the AWRV using the OM or the SASB. (3) I do not believe that the Observations of the Moscow Commission of 1904 have any authority over the liturgies authorized by the Antiochian Archdiocese – they were made for the limited purpose of saying (in a general way) what changes would have to be made to the American 1892 BCP to make it acceptable for use by parishes under the omophor of Bishop (Saint) Tikhon.

My only purpose on this page is to correct one simple statement that is in error – the claim that all of the necessary changes were made in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. That has led to the necessity of having to defend the status of the SASB.

By way of contrast, Willibrord has implied that I am one of the vagantes, said that I am ignorant or malicious, claimed that I am seeking to “rob” the Archdiocese of the right to choose its services, that I have attempted to “confuse others about the canonical status of one's own jurisdiction” (when I haven’t mentioned my jurisdiction), and he has talked about the canonical status of ECOF (which I haven’t mentioned).

I take such personal attacks to be contrary to the standards of OrthoWiki. --Fr Lev 16:40, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

As the moderators will note, I never called you personally a vagante but merely noted the reason such language was not only wrong but offensive: vagantes make this argument to demean canonical WRO. He reintroduced the erroneous information. Although the non-canonical status of L'ECOF is well-known here, it was not introduced into this discussion by me. In making his edits, he has selectively quoted SASB and rebuffed correction when it has been made. Regardless of motive, that is certainly contrary to OrthodoxWiki standards.

The moderators can also verify that "Fr Lev" has taken to following me around the board, changing nearly every recent entry I have made. I'm sinful enough to appreciate the attention, but....

I might add, the article and OrthodoxWiki overall might benefit from its contributors making a less intensely personal identification with their work, seeking fewer occasions wherein to take umbrage, and focused more on objective facts.--Willibrord 17:21, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

I said you implied I was one of the vagantes, as you think it is they who make this criticism of the AWRV liturgies. As anyone can read on this talk page, I never brought up ECOF or my jurisdiction -- you did. I have not been following you around OrthoWiki, nor changing nearly every entry you make. That's a lie. Until this week, my last post on this page was in February. I also don't put scare quotes around your name. I am not personally identifying with my "work" -- I am responding to the personal invective ("ignorant", "malicious", trying to "rob" the Antiochians, etc.) you have sent my way. --Fr Lev 17:32, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much interested in this melodrama you're putting forward to cover the fact that you selectively quote materials, omit inconvenient facts, and engage in endless edit wars.

Any of our august moderators can see how you essentially stalked me on OrthodoxWiki during my last edits here between Feb. 12-14, 2008, by viewing the the history pages of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, the Liturgy of St. Gregory, and the main Western Rite page. All clearly begin with an edit by me, followed by edit-war from you. (You managed to get at least one of those pages locked.) Here you are again, doing the same thing. So much for the "lie" you impute to me.

Selectively citing information to give a false impression is not new to you:

- You ignored two prayers in the SASB (and even more in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as celebrated Vicariate-wide) to claim all its intercessions amounted to only one petition to one saint.

- You "missed" a prayer in Vespers and erroneously asserted there was none.

- You ignore all the Propers, including the additional Mass Collects, begging the saints' and angels intercessions.

- You ignore the actual praxis of the AWRV to conflate it with an incomplete text found in a book.

- In another discussion, you ignored huge chunks of one linked website and misinformed the moderators it was merely about "William F. Buckley, Jr. -- nothing whatsoever to do with Western Rite Orthodoxy!" When I pointed out your incredibly selective reading, you claimed you were the victim.

- In yet another discussion, you stated falsely that you were quoting our moderator, Fr. John, when you changed his words.

A pattern seems to emerge.

You are quick to claim others are personally assaulting you when they dare edit you. When one knowledgable contributor corrected you, you wrote, "It is difficult for me to not suspect that your post springs from some kind of personal animus. You have made it a pooint [sic.] to follow-up postings I have made with responses that have been inaccurate and personal. That isn't appropriate for OrthodoxWiki." When he replied -- as I have -- that he's merely replacing misinformation with accurate non-POV information, you accused him of "slander." (Yet on another discussion, you instructed, "Ari needs to be careful when he imputes bad motives to people, as well as when he mis-states facts.") And when yet another OrthodoxWiki contributor disagreed with your misleading POV language, you fumed this "indicates a clear personal animus that is out of place in a venue that seeks to be an encyclopedia." Elsewhere, you told him, "you are just being silly." But, you were saying, "personal invective"?

And, of course, you were the first to claim I had written that "the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese does not have the authority to decide which service books are approved" and somehow claimed I accused him of "ignorance and malice." (What a way to twist a post!)

In other words, it appears you are hysterically accusing me of your own actions. Whether these stem from pushing an agenda, ignorance, or a very one-sided and sloppy handling of sources, none of it is beneficial to a correct, non-POV OrthodoxWiki entry.

At any rate, the weight of all this suggests you are less-than-capable of presenting objective facts about Western Rite Orthodoxy, are highly volatile when contradicted in any way, and perhaps should be moderated to prevent future edit-wars and long, personal attacks against OrthodoxWiki contributors on the Talk pages when they write more accurately about WRO than you desire.--Willibrord 22:58, June 27, 2008 (UTC)

Protection

This article has been protected for the time being so that the editors involved can politely work out a consensus among themselves before further editing it. The protection of the current version does not constitute an endorsement of its contents by the management.

Since this seems to be a subject of some controversy, the controversial elements come under the policy in the Style Manual regarding original research. In particular, whether or not "all" or "almost all" of the recommendations from Moscow were implemented by the AWRV or ROCOR in their versions of this liturgy will have to be established by reputable, third-party sources and then cited accordingly. (Looking through the liturgy's text and making this evaluation yourself constitutes original research, which is not permitted on OrthodoxWiki for controversial subjects.) Otherwise, any mention of the question will have to be removed from the article. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 15:46, June 28, 2008 (UTC)

There is a paucity of published scholarly material on the questions at hand, but there is one such review essay of the SASB published in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Vol. 41 (1997), No. 2-3, pp. 249-268. (This essay sould be added to the article's references.) It concludes that "most of the changes required by the Observations simply were not made" (p. 256). Reviewing the essay reminded me of other examples of changes not made. The Observations criticized , e.g., the BCP's anaphora for not commemorating the Saints. No such commemoration was added, as the essay notes (p. 254). Clearly, "all" is not acceptable in that it is a false claim. I would have been content with "almost all", even if "only some" is more accurate. Given the level of hostility even the modest qualifier of "almost" provoked from another editor, perhaps the only solution is to remove any mention in the relevant articles to changes being made in accordance with the Observations. --Fr Lev 20:30, July 1, 2008 (UTC)

In the Other Churches

I would like to see documentation on the claim, "ROCOR has since implemented all of them, as well, in approving 'The English Liturgy.' Hierarchs in the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Moscow Patriarchates, as well as ROCOR, have approved a form of this liturgy."

"The English Liturgy" that is linked in the article bears little resemblance to the Liturgy of St Tikhon, and purports to be based on several sources -- the medieval Sarum, the 1549 BCP, a 1718 liturgy (?), etc. -- not the 1892 BCP that Moscow examined nor the 1928 on which the Liturgy of St Tikhon is actually based. While bracketing the question of the actual provenance of the "English Liturgy," it seems anachronistic at the very least to say that it has added all of the chnages required by the Commission, when the Commission didn't examine this particular mélange.

Fr. Michael of St. Petroc monastery himself wrote The English Liturgy "was carried out strictly observing the terms of the 1907 report of the Commission of the Holy Synod of Russia, which fixed the method by which the services from the Book of Common Prayer might be adapted for use by Orthodox people." here and here (original source). --Willibrord 17:18, August 2, 2008 (UTC)

I've not run across references to the Liturgy of St Tikhon being approved by Moscow or Alexandria. Those would be good to see. --Fr Lev 15:46, July 2, 2008 (UTC)

Issues

I tried to read the discussion page, but from what I can gather, the main articles of contention in this (ridiculously long) talk page appear to be about how much of the Holy Synod's recommendations were implemented.

As Fr Lev said, this really shouldn't be contentious. What are the specific Observations (link to a reliable webpage would suffice), does the Liturgy of St Tikhon contain the corrections? — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 11:48, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

Recall we are discussing only whether the requirements of the Liturgy and Hours have been made. The Observations suggest changes, e.g., to Ordination, but all AWRV ordinations to date have been in the Byzantine Rite. Here is the relevant paragraph as to what the committee proposed for St. Tikhon's negotiations: "The committee, after reviewing these 'Observations,' allowed in general the possibility that if Orthodox parishes, composed of former Anglicans, were organized in America, they might be allowed, at their desire, to perform their worship according to the "Book of Common Prayer," but only on condition that the following corrections were made in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. On the one hand everything must be removed from the Book that bears a clearly non-Orthodox character—the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Confession, the Catechism with its protestant teaching about the sacraments, the Filioque, the idea of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as the sole source of the teaching of the Faith, etc. On the other hand, there must be inserted into the text of the prayers and rites contained in the Book those Orthodox beliefs which it is essentially necessary to profess in Orthodox worship—into the rite of the Liturgy, the profession of belief in the change of the Holy Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ, and of belief in the sacrificial significance of the Eucharist...Into all the services in general prayers must be inserted addressed [sic] to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and the Burial Service)." Interestingly, a WRITE ROCOR monk with access to the original has written the Observations were mistranslated and simply leave their implementation up to the local bishop!

As I've noted, the 39 Articles, catechism, and Filioque are gone. The full text of the Orthodox Missal Liturgy of St. Tikhon is not online, but I've quoted enough of it on this page to demonstrate the epiclesis and sacrificial language are present. These have all been made in the AWRV and in ROCOR's English Liturgy. The English Office Noted reflects AWRV Hours, as well. AWRV praxis is to conclude with a Marian antiphon, as well, unless DL follows. Here's the URL: "http://members.cox.net/frnicholas/Matins & Vespers.pdf" (space in original).

This issue became contentious precisely because certain posters have tried to say these guidelines are not clear, played semantic games with the wording of the Observations or the authorization of the Orthodox Missal vs. the SASB, ignored prayers contained in both, overlooked actual AWRV/ROCOR praxis, and expressed private opinon about whether the changes were "adequate." As Aristibule has noted on various WR pages, there are always the same tiresome attacks when the canonical Western Rite is discussed - another reason a WR Sysop is needed; he/she would save you a lot of headaches. --Willibrord 20:04, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. Somebody asked for the Observations. Why is a link such an issue?--JosephSuaiden 20:17, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. I am spacing them out and responding to them. As far as I know, I haven't touched a word of yours on the talk page.--JosephSuaiden 20:53, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making edits in another's comments - even with the best of intentions.

I was under the assumption that the link at the bottom was the full Liturgy - it's certainly advertising itself as such.

ISTM that the recommendations regarding Liturgy and Hours were implemented, but I'm open for corrections - with just the facts, please. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 21:39, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

I appeal to ignorance (I am still not that good at wiki and don't know a lot of its "tags" and will try to add my comments at the bottom from here on in. Thank you.--JosephSuaiden 21:41, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

The Orthodox Missal is the official AWRV text; the text linked omits several prayers. (A few are quoted or eluded to on this page.) If I can figure out copyright issues, I'll see if I can edit it to reflect the full text.

I appreciate your view of the Observations. I trust the word "almost" will be removed? --Willibrord 09:04, August 4, 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to see the complete text online...I'm sure greater legal minds than mine (IANAL, after all) could understand why a service of the Church would have a restricted distribution, but I'm at quite a loss.

Fullness of time and fairness to both sides kinda stuff, making sure that there are no objections left out. If there's no objections after a few (say, three) days, then I can't see a problem. (Until then, I prefer leaving 'almost' up, because that is correct on both sides, even if it may be inaccurate)

The delay is partly because, while I'm interested in WR, I've never had any personal experience - hence why I've been making a few 'lemme see if I've got this right' posts :) - not just because I'm trying to be sysop-y. I'm sorry to any who may find that approach tedious, but I do think it's the most prudent to make. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 10:37, August 4, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even service texts are subject to copyright law: "The following materials are copyrighted by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America--all rights reserved--and are included here for your personal use. Any other duplication without prior written permission is prohibited." Certain vagantes rip them off, anyway, though.
I appreciate your careful approach here. Any chance we can talk you into experiencing WR worship, if only for research purposes? :) --Willibrord 11:01, August 4, 2008 (UTC)

I know that they're quite firmly under copyright, as are all post-1900 (or whenever) translations of Eastern Rite texts (so it's not like it's unique) - my beef has nothing to do with the law :), but with the idea that texts of the Church should be common to the Church.

There'd be a far greater chance if my city had WR worship :) I live in Australia, and while Tasmania might seem close, well, it's a bit like living in New Jersey and having the closest living experience in, oh, south Texas or something... I've looked at all the photos that I can find (Frs Jack and Michael, mostly) - if there's any videos (on YouTube or such), I'd be very interested in seeing them. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 11:12, August 4, 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation continues

Willibrord continues to make false claims on this page. Not all the changes in the Observations were made. I have cited several on this page, although only one instance is needed to falsify a universal proposition ("all"). Here is one: the Observations requires that commemorations of the saints be added to the anaphora. While such commemorations were added to the OM version of the Liturgy of St Tikhon, they were not added to the SASB version. Here is a second: the Observations require that such commemoration be added to the offices. While they have been added to Vespers, they have not been added to Matins in the SASB. Whether there is a custom of singing or sayiing a Marian antiphon after the office is irrelevant. No such text appears in the office of Matins itself, not does any rubric appear requiring or even mentioning such a practice. Here is a third: the Observations require such commemorations to be added to the Great Litany, which is a text to be used in Matins or the Liturgy. No such changes were made. These points were made in a review of the SASB in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly (referenced in the Liturgy of St Grgeory article). This is published research, not private opinion. To continue to claim that "all" changes were made is puzzling. As I wrote earlier, either the qualifier Willibrord objects to ("almost") needs to be retained, replaced with "some", or any attempt to quantify the number of changes made needs to be removed from the article.

While Willibrird clearly doesn't like the SASB, it doesn't change the incontrovertible fact that the SASB is also a fully authorized text in the Antiochian Archdiocese. To deny that is to claim that the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese isn't competent to determine official texts, as his letter of authorization is printed in the SASB, which is printed by the Archdiocese itself. I fail to see why this should be a point of contention. --Fr Lev 14:00, August 4, 2008 (UTC)

Pistevo, Fr. Andrew, as I wrote contention comes in when people played semantic games with the wording of the Observations or the authorization of the Orthodox Missal vs. the SASB, ignored prayers contained in both, and overlooked actual AWRV/ROCOR praxis.

The Observations say St. Tikhon, in his negotiations, would want to introduce invocation of the saints, but it does NOT specify the canon ("anaphora"). Indeed, the Observations do not mention the word "anaphora" or "canon" at all. They merely say these prayers should be added into "the services in general." As I noted above under "Current Revision," both the Confiteor and the Libera Nos contain invocations of the saints, and both are clearly printed within the text of the Liturgy in both the Orthodox Missal and the SASB. This poster himself has stated the Memorials in the SASB invoke "blessed Mary and all Thy Saints, that, through their intercessions, we with them may be partakers of Thy heavenly kingdom." He merely expressed his private opinion this "does not seem adequate." I am told that even in the parish that drew up the SASB, the referenced silent prayers are SAID, but since SASB was merely a pew book for the laity, silent prayers were not printed. And even this impressive list ignores the Propers of the Mass (and the Hours), which frequently invoke saints and angels -- but the point is more than sufficiently made.

The English Office published by St. Luke's Priory Press is the AWRV's official, approved text of the Tikhonite divine office, according both to the Ordo of the WRV and to this paper by Fr. Nicholas Alford, an AWRV priest, on the website of another AWRV parish, St. Patrick's. This text of English Office Matins and Vespers is available online (linked above) at: "http://members.cox.net/frnicholas/Matins & Vespers.pdf" (The space is part of the URL; I don't know how to get Wiki to link this properly). You will note the third collect for Matins, which begins "Defend us, we beseech thee, O Lord," asks "the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, the ever Virgin Mother of God, of blessed Joseph, of thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul," of the parish patron saint, "and of all thy saints." Indeed, a certain vagante on the Occidentalis Yahoo Group attacked this prayer specifically as a "Byzantinization"(!). Similarly, in the English Office both Matins and Vespers conclude, "When the Mass does not follow the Office, the Marian Anthem is sung." Such is general AWRV praxis.

As noted above a) the Litany (not "Great Litany") is neither a liturgy nor an hour but a service of its own; and b) the Orthodox Ritual implemented the Observations' recommendation by merely authorizing the Litany of the Saints itself rather than an altered form of this Litany. So, this statement is false on two grounds.

Among other faulty items, the St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly article is the same one that alleges the AWRV added St. Andrew's name to the Canon of the Mass in honor of St. Andrew's AWRV Church in Florida! Of course, St. Andrew is an ancient part of that canon, added by Pope St. Gregory the Great. Published misinformation is still misinformation; adding it would actually decrease the value of this entry.

This poster's header is correct that "Misinformation Continues" to abound about the Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the AWRV in general. This OrthodoxWiki page should be one place where readers can find accurate information, rather than misinformation like that circulated above. --Willibrord 20:36, August 4, 2008 (UTC)

So far, uncontested agreement on the Orthodox Missal having followed the Observations.

For what it's worth, published misinformation is able to be put into an article, along with it's rebuttal - this is how OW stays NPOV - we document both sides...it's our niche, for those out there in marketing.

Is there anything in writing from official sources that specifically says that SASB is a prayer book for the laity, or, that it abbreviates the priestly prayers in the Liturgy?

I will amend one thing I said. The Observations refers to the lack of the invocation of the saints in the “offertory”, which I hastily assumed was the anaphora. As it happens, it refers to the intercessions that are separated from the anaphora. That was, I should think, an understandable mistake.

Willibrord refers to the expression from the SASB, "blessed Mary and all Thy Saints, that, through their intercessions, we with them may be partakers of Thy heavenly kingdom." I had said this "does not seem adequate" to meet the requirements of the Observations. In this section, the Observations complains of the BCP that “there is only the weakest and most timid reference made to the existence of the heavenly members of the Church.” I think simply mentioning “blessed Mary and all Thy Saints” is rather weak and timid. If Willibrord thinks that phrase is sufficiently robust, that is also a “private opinion.”

The Litany may stand alone, or it may be used in conjunction with the Office or the Liturgy. But the simple fact is that the text as it stands has, in the words of the Observations, a “protestant character” that needs to be amended to include the commemoration of the Theotokos or the Saints.

The SASB is an authorized service book of the AWRV, as indicated by the letter by Metropolitan PHILIP that is printed therein, which means the form of Matins included is also an approved text. It does not include the commemoration of the Theotokos and the saints. Nor is there a rubric in the SASB about singing a Marian antiphon, which, in any event, would not be a part of the office itself.

I agree that the there is partial mistake in the SVTQ essay, although Willibrord gets it completely wrong. The SVTQ author was writing about the Libera nos that interrupts the Lord’s Prayer, not the Canon of the Mass. The author was not addressing the Liturgy of St Gregory, where that embolism belongs, but the Liturgy of St Tikhon. The Libera nos has never been a part of an official Anglican liturgy, and certainly was not a part of either the 1892 BCP the Observations examined or the 1928 BCP on which the Tikhonite rite was actually based. --Fr Lev 22:24, August 4, 2008 (UTC)

Pistevo, I think we have two sources of official comment on the OM/SASB issue.

1) Subdn. Benjamin Andersen's M.Div. thesis, footnoted with official documents and his personal interviews with AWRV Vicar General Fr. Paul Schneirla, explicitly states the SASB is merely "a simple parish prayer book" that "omits all of the priest’s silent prayers (including the vitally important Offertory prayers)" and "omits a whole prayer from the Canon (the Memento of the faithful departed)" (among other things). This thesis earned him an M.Div. with honors from St. Vladimir's, and his blog is (the primary?) source for the main WR page on OrthodoxWiki and Wikipedia. Again, his thesis was produced with the cooperation of the highest levels of the Vicariate (Fr. Schneirla himself) and commended by same after its completion (ditto). In other words, he knows whereof he speaks.

2) There is another important consideration in official documents, pointed to by the AWRV detractor's self-contradictory argument on this Talk page. He acknowledges the Metropolitan's 1995 letter refers to the Orthodox Missal as "the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." This poster claims this wording resulted because the SASB came out in 1996; however, that was the SASB's second edition. He writes, "The Metropolitan’s letter in the (1996) SASB is quite clear that the first edition of the SASB 'was approved for use by the Western Rite Congregations of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1989'" -- six years before Met. PHILIP designated the Orthodox Missal "the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." This indicates a difference in purpose between the OM and SASB, or some difference in authorization. However, it is impossible that Met. PHILIP could call the Orthodox Missal the Antiochian Archdiocese's "exclusive use" six years after authorizing a different and competing rite, as this poster would have it.

The 1892 BCP, to which the Observations refer, states, "The Order for Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, are distinct Services, and may be used either separately or together." This should not be a matter of contention.

For the second time I note, the Observations left where invocations of the saints would be added to the BCP under the bishop's authority and nowhere specified they must be added to a specific section of the Liturgy.

For at least the second time, this poster ignores the invocations in the Confiteor and Libera Nos, both clearly printed in the SASB text of the Liturgy. It appears this poster is determined to insert the Litany into the Mass, remove the Confiteor from it, and ignore the Libera Nos altogether.

At no point do the Observations specify a certain number of invocations, meaning the AWRV detractors' speculation about whether the 18 saints invoked are "adequate" is by definition private opinion.

Among other liturgical experts, Dom Fernand Cabrol considered the Libera Nos part of the Roman Canon. The deeper question is whether someone who knows as little about Western liturgics as the author of the SVTQ article shows himself to is adding any value, or merely expressing his misinformed private opinion like the AWRV's detractors on this Talk page. --Willibrord 09:47, August 5, 2008 (UTC)

Sdn Benjamin's thesis would be an example of citable material, and my viewpoint is that the interviews with Fr Paul Schneirla would suffice. I would strongly encourage the posting of, or linking to, this thesis online (right now, we can say 'according to Andersen, 2006', but I'm not sure how much further we can go). However, the links to the Occidentalis blog can be considered 'privileged' - it appears that it's now a closed blog. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 10:02, August 5, 2008 (UTC)

Some straightforward facts

1. It doesn’t matter whether the Litany is used alone or in conjunction with the office or the Liturgy. The Observations require that invocation of the Theotokos, the Angels, and the Saints be added. They were not added to the SASB version of the Litany.

2. Willibrord writes, “For the second time I note, the Observations left where invocations of the saints would be added to the BCP under the bishop's authority and nowhere specified they must be added to a specific section of the Liturgy.” But this is plainly false. The concluding paragraph of the Observations is unambiguous: “Into all the services in general prayers must be inserted addressed [sic] to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and the Burial Service).”

3. Willibrord seems to misunderstand Metropolitan PHILIP’s letter in the 1995 OM. The Metropolitan wrote, “These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese.” Willibrord seems to be reading that as saying these texts and only these texts may be used in our Archdiocese, but that isn’t what the sentence says. But in any event, in the very next year, the Metropolitan refers in his letter in the SASB to its texts as “these authorized liturgies and other rites and ceremonies….” So even if one understood the 1995 letter as excluding other texts, one has to acknowledge a reversal in 1996 in that the texts of the SASB are clearly identified as authorized services.

There is no getting around 1, 2, and 3. And pointing out 1, 2, and 3, in no way makes me a "detractor" of the AWRV. I fully support the AWRV and fully support their Metropolitan's right to authorize whatever liturgies he sees fit to authorize, which includes both the OM and the SASB. --Fr Lev 02:02, August 6, 2008 (UTC

What an odd post; you merely restated arguments already refuted. Let's try this one last time....

1) The original entry stated that the AWRV implemented all the Observation's recommendations about the Liturgy and canonical Hours of prayer. As I note for the fourth time, and quote the 1892 BCP for the second time, the Litany, Hours, and Liturgy "are distinct services," and thus, your continuous reference to it is immaterial and off-topic.

2) Once again, the Observations do not state the changes have to be inserted (read carefully) into any specific section of the Liturgy but merely "into the rite of the Liturgy." Originally, you falsely wrote, "the Observations requires that commemorations of the saints be added to the anaphora"; then you made reference to the "offertory"; and now you cite a quotation that requires changes be made to no specific part of the liturgy as proof such a requirement exists. Astounding!

3) The testimony of Fr. Paul Schneirla, Subdn. Benjamin Andersen, and others carries more weight and makes more sense that whatever semantic argument you are making; I flatly can't decipher it. Otherwise, we are left with your illogical view that Met. PHILIP authorized the first edition of the SASB in 1989, unauthorized it in 1995 by making the OM "the exclusive use of our Archdiocese," then re-authorized the SASB (version 2.0) the following year. The unchanging testimony of AWR Vicar General Fr. Paul Schneirla makes more sense, particularly given that he knows what he's talking about.

As the moderator agrees the AWRV made all recommended changes to the approved Hours and Liturgy, this argument has run its course, and devolved from misinformation and semantics to farce. I hope the mods are spared 13 edits to this Talk page in the next 24 hours.--Willibrord 04:56, August 7, 2008 (UTC)

Whatever may be the case, all these testimonies, in order to be considered for inclusion in an article on a controversial topic, have to be documented in a published, third-party, secondary source. In other words, it is not enough that any of us read or listen to a primary source and then write about it. It must be that we are summarizing someone else's research. "So-and-so says" does not merit inclusion.

And please, once again, Father Benjamin, tone it down. Phrases like "What an odd post," "your illogical view," "devolved from misinformation and semantics to farce," etc., are not reflective of a commitment to engage the arguments without attacking those making them. Although no one of your comments recently has been above the top, the preponderance of them over time is resulting in your being issued an official warning.

BTW, you've several times on this Talk page accused others of engaging in edit warring. The nature of an edit war is that it takes at least two to tango. (Though I suppose the metaphor breaks down when it's more than two!) I honestly haven't been much enthused about the behavior of hardly anyone who's been materially engaged with this article in recent months. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 12:22, August 7, 2008 (UTC)

I know this Talk page is nearly as long as the Patrologia at this point, but Fr. Andrew, as moderator I thought you would have read it in full before weighing in. The fact that the Orthodox Missal and the SASB serve different functions is, indeed, "documented in a published, third-party, secondary source." I cited it on this very page: the M.Div. thesis of Subdn. Benjamin Andersen. This thesis relies on official documents and interviews with the Vicar General, is presumably available from SVOTS, and a relevant excerpt in posted on his blog (which is a primary source for our WR article). Pistevo is satisfied with this proof. It is not a case of my presenting original research, as you implied. Due to length (and boring content), absolution is granted.

Your statement that edit wars take two reminds me of a Homer Simpson quotation, "It takes two to lie: one to lie and one to listen." As I explained on your discussion page, the last time this poster continually reverted one of my edits you wrote,"If y'all move your edit war (i.e., repeated reversions to the same edit) to another article, then you'll both be banned temporarily to allow a cooling-off period." In this case, I reverted this article all of once. When I saw this poster was again determined to continually revert to a previous edit (as he did on several of my articles Feb. 12-14 of this year), I left his version up and alerted you I was not going to engage in an edit war but abide by a moderator's decision. I've more than proven my willingness to answer objections -- repeatedly. But you have banned no one, and I am now being blamed for following your instructions. Hey, thanks.

You'll note the argument, which don't you find objectionable in itself, is directed at this poster's argument, not at him; I did find his argument repetitive, semantical, and in error. However, it hardly seems even-handed that you warned only me -- although I am not quick to claim offense, you'll verify on this page that this poster has repeatedly used ad hominem attacks, writing that I am someone who "wishes to pretend" and have made "an attempt to confuse" your readers (both implying bad faith and imputing a hidden agenda) by making "false claims" and spreading "misinformation" through "misrepresentations" and "personal invective." He's written that I believe Met. PHILIP "is acting 'in ignorance or malice'" (!) My words are "silly"; "silly, incoherent, and demonstrably false." And you'll notice who used the term you reference, "puzzling," first. I am not the kind to quickly find offense (seeking offense is itself an offense), but it is not equitable treatment to admonish only one set of behavior, which was NOT ad hominem, and let earlier assaults (which are actually ad hominem and violate OrthodoxWiki policy) go without mention. That's not right. IMHO, you should send this poster an equal official warning, rescind mine, or both.

Finally, you identified me as "Father Benjamin," and others on the site have called me "Deacon" or "Byzantine clergy." I have never identified myself by any such name, term, or title either on here or in private. Willibrord is my username. --Willibrord 22:15, August 8, 2008 (UTC)

I have repeated more than once the simple fact that the SASB published by the Antiochian Archdiocese in 1996 contains a letter from Metropolitan PHILIP describing is as authorized services. Willibrord seems to be denying that is the case, preferring, he says, the opinions of Fr Schneirla, etc. Just to be clear, is Willibrord denying that the 1996 SASB was (1) published by the Antiochian Archdiocese; or (2) that it was published in 1996 (therefore later than the OM; or (3) that it does not conatin the letter of authorization from Metropolitan PHILIP; (4) that Fr Schneirla, Subdeacon Benjamin, etc., have more authority than the Metropolitan; or (5) some combination of the first four. This should be a straightforward issue, and I am baffled that so much energy is being expended to deny the simple, objective facts as to the official nature of the SASB.

And, to repeat again, the concluding paragraph of the Observations says that "Into all the services in general prayers must be inserted addressed to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and the Burial Service). No such prayers were added to Matins in the SASB. And, although there is a mention of the Theotokos and the Saints in a collect of Vespers, that prayer is not addressed to the Saints, but to God. The Observations, as just quoted, requires that prayers addressed to the Theotokos and the Saints be inserted. This is also a straightforward, objective point. --Fr Lev 17:11, August 7, 2008 (UTC)

It is flatly false to assert I have denied the SASB was published by the Archdiocese and unsupportable from my comments here or elsewhere. Anyone can verify that this is a strawman. Moreover, he does not state simply that the SASB simply has some form of authorization but that it is authorized as a different, competing liturgy alongside/equal to the Orthodox Missal. That it isn't.

Beyond that, we've more than plumbed the OM-SASB issue. Pistevo is satisfied with citing Subdn. Benjamin Andersen's thesis. Only the view that OM and SASB serve different functions can account for the Metropolitan's statment that the second of the two published (OM) is "the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." Otherwise, we're left with the contention that Met. PHILIP authorized the SASB (1 ed.) in 1989, declared the OM "the exclusive use of our Archdiocese" in 1995 (thus unauthorizing SASB), and then we must "acknowledge a[nother] reversal" with his authorization of SASB (2 ed.) in 1996. This hardly seems a logical contention, much less "objective fact." The cited M. Div. thesis -- a published third party source with more credibility, as it relies on official documents and interviews -- makes much more sense.

This poster's last objection is as without basis as the others on several grounds.

1) Least importantly, Fr. Michael Mansbridge-Wood, who has access to the original, has written its translators "misinterpreted some basic matters," and the thrust was to leave exact implementation in the hands of the bishop. Translation (or interpretation) comes into question below.

2) As already noted, the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate's authorized Tikhonite hours found in The English Office direct that the hours end with the Marian Antiphon, all of which are addressed directly to the Theotokos (e.g., "Mary, we hail thee...."). Similar examples are found in the Propers for feasts of angels and saints, part of the office. (Again TEO directs, "Then follows the Magnificat with the proper antiphon." The antiphon for II Vespers on the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel [September 29] reads, "O Prince most glorious, Michael the Archangel, keep us in remembrance here and everywhere; always entreat the Son of God for us. Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia." The same antiphon for the feast of St. Gregory the Great [the Dialogist, March 12] reads, "O Teacher right excellent, O light of the Holy Church, o blessed Gregory, lover of the divine law: intercede for us unto the Son of God.")

3)Most importantly, although I've more than proven the Tikhonite offices fulfill even this criteria, I'm not certain your reading of this requirement -- that invocation of the saints is only properly fulfilled only if the ordinary Office text contains prayers addressed directly to the saints and not by asking for their intercessions in prayer to God -- is accurate. If this were the standard, the ordinary text of Byzantine Vespers could not pass it. Although it contains a weekly variable Theotokion, it has no weekly prayer as part of its ordinary text addressed to the angels (though like the Western Rite, there are many in the "propers": festal stichera, etc.). Instead, Byzantine Vespers ends, "May He Who rose from the dead, Christ our true God, through the intercessions of...." -- invoking the saints just as does the Tikhonite office. This is a straightforward and objective fact.

I trust this puts this issue to rest and look for the moderators to weigh in based on the evidence presented. Then we can quit reading this Talk page and move on to something shorter, like The Brothers Karamazov. --Willibrord 22:15, August 8, 2008 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on the Observations?

I don’t understand why anyone is concerned to argue that “all” of the changes required by the Observations were made by the Antiochians to their Western rite liturgies – even if such a claim were true. The Observations were the report of a special commission of the Moscow Patriarchate to address a specific question – how must the American Book of Common Prayer of 1892 be modified to make it acceptable for Orthodox use by those Episcopalians that were in discussion with Bishop (Saint) Tikhon. They have no official standing for any Church other than the Russian, and it is doubtful that Russian bishops today would feel bound by a 1904 commission report about a BCP that has not been used for almost 100 years. --Fr Lev 02:03, August 6, 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I found this to be a salient point - the Observations were just that, observations, and I'm not convinced that they have any canonical force.

Keeping this in mind, I have made an edit that, hopefully, will be acceptable to all. Hopefully, then, we might get to developing the article, or talking about who Angwin was... — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 21:56, August 6, 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it salient, particularly as this article became contentious when this poster waged an edit war to deny the AWRV implemented all the Observation's recommendations for the Liturgy and Hours, then devoted pages upon pages to arguing his point. (Physician, heal thyself.) Now that he sees you disagree, he finds the issue meaningless.

The Observations are historically important for the Western Rite, since this shows a committee of the Synod of Russia (martyred shortly thereafter) gave approval for St. Tikhon to allow some edit of BCP/Anglican worship for use in the Orthodox Church in the United States, and ultimately left the final shape to be determined on the ground. It was not a new, Antiochian idea in the 1970s.

The Antiochian WR Vicariate authorized only the use of the Hours (Matins/Vespers) and St. Tikhon's Liturgy, and in doing so the AWRV implemented all recommendations appropriate to each. This is important, as detractors of canonical WRO have repeatedly lied in an attempt to discredit St. Tikhon's Liturgy, "there exist conditions which the Russian Commission set, for fixing the Cranmer rite [sic.], with which the AWRV is not in compliance." They then rage St. Tikhon's Hours are "throughly Protestant" and the Liturgy of St. Tikhon "Zwinglian"! Since the misinformation is so abundantly available, as this Talk page proves, the truth should be available on this page. That is, after all, the role of an encyclopedia: to present accurate information to the public.

As we've settled that all the recommendations for the Hours and Liturgy were implemented, the article is not aided by dropping that reference; further, it gives the WR's detractors additional room to spread misinformation. I hope that makes sense. If it didn't matter, this poster would not have made it such an issue. Now that it's settled, it shouldn't be stripped from the article.

Incidentally, Fr. Joseph Angwin kept a pretty low profile and, had few dealings outside his own parish. May he rest in peace. --Willibrord 05:21, August 7, 2008 (UTC)